MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs THE DIRECTORGENERAL MARITIME SECURITY AGENCY
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the termination of the petitioner's services as a Draftsman in BPS-14, initially appointed on a temporary basis. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, whose temporary post was abolished due to administrative restructuring by the Ministry of Defence, possessed a vested legal right to retain his employment or insist on reinstatement at his original grade after the post was revived at a lower grade (BPS-7). The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal, finding the termination lawful as the appointment was temporary and the underlying post had been abolished. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that a temporary employee appointed against a temporary post holds no legal right to continued employment once that post is abolished. The Court held that the termination was valid and free from legal infirmity, as the petitioner could not demonstrate any entitlement to the position after its abolition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit, reinforcing the principle that temporary appointments against temporary posts do not confer permanent rights of tenure.
- Does a temporary employee appointed against a temporary post have a legal right to continued employment after the post is abolished?
- Can a temporary employee insist on appointment to a specific grade when the post has been revived at a lower grade?
- Is the termination of a temporary employee lawful when the underlying post is abolished by the competent authority?
- Section 4, Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Petitioner was appointed as Draftsman in BPS-14 vide order dated 13-3-1988 on temporary basis. His services were terminated by order dated 15-7-1990. He filed departmental appeal but on getting no response filed appeal before Federal Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. During the hearing before the Tribunal stand was taken in the comments that appointment of petitioner was purely on temporary basis and was discontinued for the reason that Ministry of Defence disallowed continuation of 67 civilian posts including the post of the petitioner resulting in termination of 67 persons. Subsequently in 1991, 48 posts were sanctioned on yearly basis including post of Draftsman lowered down to BPS-7. Petitioner was offered the post of Draftsman in the lowered grade but he declined and insisted on appointment in BPS-14. Service Tribunal dismissed appeal of the petitioner.
2. Counsel for the petitioner was unable to show us that appointment of petitioner was not temporary in nature when his services were terminated. Not only the appointment was temporary in nature but the post against which petitioner was appointed was not permanent but temporary and was abolished. Petitioner cannot claim any legal right in respect of his appointment on temporary basis against a temporary post. We see no flaw or legal infirmity in the judgment of the Service Tribunal to which no exception can be taken. In the result leave is refused and the petition is dismissed which has no merits.
Cited by 1 case
- AHSANULLAH and 11 others vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary 2016 PLC (C.S.) 477